If you are taking the words of the Bible to live by, will you stone your son or daughter if they disobey you? Would you make your daughter marry the guy that raped her?

Ill answer when i come home from P town 😅

I wished you have contacted me before this episode

Great video guys! Lots of good points!

Hello

We ask the Holy Spirit to guide us and also to save us....Ist Cor 6:9. New Living Translation Don’t you realize that those who do wrong will not inherit the Kingdom of God. Don’t fool yourselves, Those who indulge in sexual sins. Or who worship idols, or who commit adultery or are male prostitutes or practise homosexualiry.

So, I listened to your conversation, and then read the 3-part article, and although I am not suicidal, it made me entertain the thought to just end it right away. That article is very dark, and jumps to a lot of conclusions by presenting half-truths. It is misguided at best, and harmful at worst. And I would think twice before I'd recommend it. I don't doubt your good intentions, but you must be more careful with your advice.

"Jeff has a PhD in.. something fancy.. he's a smart guy..." You are referencing Jeff Miller, whose article, "Homosexuality: Society, Science, and Psychology", you highly acclaim and mention several times throughout this video. Jeff Miller has a PhD in Biomechanical Engineering - his graduate and undergraduate degrees are no more relevant to the topic of Christian Theology and homosexuality than his doctorate is. So, yes, while he may be an intelligent individual, his PhD hardly lends credence to his claims about homosexuality and how it pertains to Christian theology. Indeed, right from the beginning of his article one must question Miller’s ability to faithfully engage with this topic. And I seriously mean that. I genuinely am questioning whether or not Miller has any interest whatsoever in faithfully engaging this topic. Why do I say this? Because right off the bat he shows that he is entirely unable to comprehend a piece of literature that is obviously written a specific way - a way that Miller entirely misses. The way he chooses to set the stage for the entire article is by quoting the complete text of Michael Swift’s “Gay Manifesto” (which was originally titled “Gay Revolutionary”). Miller even went so far as to put in bold the parts he found particularly pertinent for painting his anti-homosexuality picture. It is truly amazing to me how the irony of this seems to go completely over Miller’s head and, since you so strongly endorsed this article, yours as well. Usually, the first sentence of the “Gay Revolutionary” is left out when cited by right wing, conservative Christian sources. However, Miller actually includes it. Which makes this all the more interesting, because the first sentence provides more than enough context to know that this document is satirical! It was never meant to be taken literally! And anyone who can’t read the first few lines and understand that - I must conclude - is either unbelievably ignorant or simply has an anti-homosexual presupposition that they are trying to find supporting evidence for. Those are really the only two options. The very first sentence of “Gay Revolutionary” is this: “This essay is an outré, madness, a tragic, cruel fantasy, an eruption of inner rage, on how the oppressed desperately dream of being the oppressor.” Even if you don’t know what an “outré” is referring to, one should still be able to read this sentence and understand that what they are about to read is going to be intentionally over-the-top. And if one simply does a bit of research on the word “outré”, this becomes abundantly clear. “Outré” means something along the lines of “carry to excess” or “to go beyond”. Does it get any clearer? To take Michael Swift’s “Gay Revolutionary” and use it as evidence of the “gay agenda” is just unbelievably ridiculous. It is also unbelievably ironic. Why? Because “Gay Revolutionary” is literally playing on the very homophobic tropes that people like Miller use it as evidence for! All you and Miller are doing by using it this way is literally exposing your own ignorance! This is truly just unreal. Am I dreaming right now? Seriously. The only agenda that is being exposed here is your own anti-homosexuality agenda. And yes, I do mean you three, the hosts of this podcast. You are putting your voice and your opinions out into the public sphere, and as such, you are responsible for making sure your sources are legitimate. So, please, I beg you, think about the implications of setting the tone of one’s entire article by using a piece of literature completely fallaciously. If one is not capable of properly understanding the intent and purpose of a piece of literature that they use as the foundation - the tone-setter - of their article, what does that say about their ability to faithfully and accurately engage the topic as a whole? I also beg you, plead with you to read the following article: www.boxturtlebulletin.com/Articles/000,015.pdf This is a parody article titled “The Heterosexual Agenda.” Its author states, “This is a parody. In writing this, I used the same methods that NARTH, Focus on the Family, American Family Association, and many others use to write this “antistraight” tract. And I did this using social science research exactly as they do.” The reason I am begging you to read this (and I mean actually read it without just assuming that it’s total rubbish before you even engage it faithfully) is because Jeff Miller’s article, the one you so highly commend, is quite literally the epitome of what “The Heterosexual Agenda” is making a parody of. “The Heterosexual Agenda” isn’t just a parody, however. It is done in such a way that exposes the nonsense methodologies used to discredit the lives and loves of homosexual people. You claim to care about the lives and souls of homosexual people. I beg you to challenge yourself to do one of the following things: 1. Actually work diligently to faithfully engage the literature and work of pro-LGBTQ Christian theologians and scholars. Read David Gushee’s book “Changing Our Mind” and work hard to approach it faithfully and as unbiased as you can be. 2. If you’re not willing to do number 1, resolve to just simply not talk about the topic of homosexuality within the scope of Christian theology. Let people who are actually capable of engaging the nuance and complexity around the topic do the talking and writing.